From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933285AbcFJQgN (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2016 12:36:13 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:46723 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932628AbcFJQgL (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2016 12:36:11 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:36:10 -0700 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: "Faccini, Bruno" Cc: James Simmons , "devel@driverdev.osuosl.org" , "Dilger, Andreas" , "Drokin, Oleg" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Lustre Development List Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] staging: lustre: lnet: Allocate MEs and small MDs in own kmem_caches Message-ID: <20160610163610.GA20291@kroah.com> References: <1465512347-11650-1-git-send-email-jsimmons@infradead.org> <1465512347-11650-3-git-send-email-jsimmons@infradead.org> <20160610012833.GA6804@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org A: No. Q: Should I include quotations after my reply? http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 03:25:28PM +0000, Faccini, Bruno wrote: > Hello, > The intent of this patch is not to solve the corruptions for sure, but > only to avoid the concerned MEs/small-MDs LNet structs to be quite > frequently impacted due to their high allocation/free rate. But that's not what the patch description said :( And again, putting them in a separate cache is not going to save much of anything, given that your caches might have been merged together anyway. > This may also possibly help to save cycles due to high usage and > contention when using a generic kmem_cache (when they stay separate > from others, thanks for the precision!). Have you measured this? This isn't applicable for 4.7-rc at this time, _unless_ it fixes a bug, which is why I pushed back on this. If you want your own cache for these variables, fine, I don't care, but that makes it a 4.8-rc1 patch instead. hope that helps explain things better, greg k-h